bug#34974: 27.0.50; Moving article error with duplicate suppression disabled

[Eric Abrahamsen]

"Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob@tcd.ie> writes:

> "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob@tcd.ie> writes:
>
>> With gnus-suppress-duplicates left at its default value of nil, trying
>> to move an article with 'B m <group>' gives me the following backtrace:
>>
>> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument hash-table-p nil)
>>   remhash("<redacted-message-id>" nil)
>>   gnus-dup-unsuppress-article(1988)
>>   gnus-summary-move-article(nil)
>>   funcall-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil)
>>   call-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil nil)
>>   command-execute(gnus-summary-move-article)
>>
>> I'm no expert, and I haven't tried reproducing this with a minimal
>> config, but I think gnus-summary-move-article should not call
>> gnus-dup-unsuppress-article when gnus-suppress-duplicates is nil, right?
>>
>> This issue seems to have been uncovered by the switch to hash-tables in
>> bug#33653.  Previously, gnus-dup-unsuppress-article called unintern,
>> which would not complain when its second argument gnus-dup-hashtb was
>> nil, even though it probably should have.
>>
>> Patch to follow.
>
> Sorry, this is a duplicate of bug#34973, which was reported first and
> where I've now sent my suggested patch.
>
> I was going to merge the two bug reports, but then I read that the
> debbugs 'merge' command requires reports to be assigned to the same
> package.

Bah, and I'd sent in the "merge" command moments before. Trying too hard
to be helpful.

> This report was created by the gnus-bug command, which assigned it to
> both packages emacs and gnus and version 5.13, whereas the other report
> was presumably created by report-emacs-bug and assigned to the emacs
> package, version 27.0.50.
>
> So, which package+version combination should Gnus bugs be assigned to?
> How should these two reports be merged?  Does merging keep all parties
> CCed, or do they have to be CCed anew?
>
> Thanks,